Reviews

12 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Laughable
19 December 2003
Banal rubbish. Hideous, awful dialog, lumpen, trivial acting. No weight, no depth. The triumph of show over substance, of spectacle over intelligence.

It is infantile cinema, and all its accolades below are testament to the emotional and intellectual immaturity of millions. Those who salute this film as a masterpiece embrace mediocrity; those who hail it great expose their parochial vapidity.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Wit (2001 TV Movie)
Splendid
22 November 2003
Splendid. By turns funny, wry, moving; it's literate, witty and mature, avoiding the usual tropes of film. Great stuff out of a small group of actors, memorably led by Thompson. Erudite but not showy.

Seems to me many films move through one emotion at a time. So now you have the funny bit, then the sad bit, then the protagonist bravely triumphing and so on. But this film was far from by-numbers stuff. It made me blub but made me laugh at the same time. Thus: a moment of high emotion draws to a close with a line from Shakey -- Shakey who had been dissed earlier in respect to Donne. Well, maybe you gots to be a lito, but it made me laugh.

A consummation devoutly to be wished.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Identity (2003)
Absolute twaddle
3 November 2003
Warning: Spoilers
Spoilers.

That film the other year, the Nicholas Cage one, `Adaptation,' about the orchid thief, remember the film script one of the brothers was working on, the absurdly delicious one about series of murders that are revealed all to be inside the head of a multiple personality disorder sufferer who is at the same time the girl and the cop and the murderer?

This story is that story.

And it's utter rubbish.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
One of the greats of the 20th century
26 November 2002
Great art reflects the audience's prejudices. Thus `Starship Troopers' is great art; for those who are looking for sci-fi thrills, it answers; for those who want to ogle The Beautiful Ones, it answers; for those critical of militarism, it answers; for those wary of government, it answers: for those who see how society brings on its own ills, it answers; for those who decry sexism and seek gender and racial equality, it answers; for those who despair of callow youth and cynical age, it answers; for those who like meat to their movies it answers; and for those that like none, it answers.

The depth and intelligence of this film are inexhaustible; it is unique, yet familiar; comforting, yet disquieting; and amusing, yet horrifying. One of the greats of the 20th century.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Darrow (1991 TV Movie)
Well worth a look
17 October 2002
Wow, a Spacey film with no reviews. I picked this one up from a pirate seller here in Shanghai. It's pretty good. It's got that made-for-TV feel, which is a bit distracting, but with its obviously modest budget it turns in a decent performance -- though the voice-over by the protagonist's son is largely superfluous.

Spacey plays (the historical) Clarence Darrow, who turns from a meek early 20thC corporate lawyer into a champion of justice for the poor and downtrodden. Spacey nicely captures Darrow's growing surety and nuanced reaction to his growing fame. The resulting break-up of Darrow's marriage, however, is dealt with somewhat incoherently, though the aftermath of the break-up is tackled with more gusto.

The surrounding cast turn in a workmanlike performance, though there's a hint of evil-baron-twirling-moustache to some of the villains, and too much `ard -working `onesty to the poor folk (sort of Goody Blake and Harry Gill)

Darrow's rise was followed by a sharp fall; this too is covered pretty well. But his most famous case, The Scopes Trial, which was the one I most wanted to see (Spacey getting his teeth into the absurd christians) is not covered, merely voiced by his son. I'm not sure if that's a cop-out or quite admirable (cf. the son's voice-over ``The Scopes Trial, the one which everyone remembers him for..'').

Thus the film closes with Darrow's return to notoriety, trying to save a pair of murders the death sentence. This calls for the lawyer-film favorite, the barnstormer speech. It's a trope ripe for melodrama, but Spacey sees the trap and sidesteps it. The make-up (Darrow's now elderly) is a bit ropey, it's true -- but that's no impediment to the actor. None of your cocksure lawyer here; he's half-broken, half-unsure, passionate but querulous. Nor is the speech wrapped up in a couple of paragraphs; it's a lengthy, judicious affair, Spacey dominating the scene entirely.

In all, well worth a punt.
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Outstanding
1 October 2002
An astonishing, captivating film. One of the toughest tricks to pull off is making film people talk like real people; director/writer Noonan does it o.k. This film generates a prickling, enjoyable sense of unease in the viewer, which gives way to discomfort and then alarm; and then on to awkwardness and the hope for reconciliation.

The only other Noonan film I've seen, apart from his cameo in the enjoyable hokum `Heat,' is `The Wife,' which I feel is less successful. One of the small cast of that film is Wallace Shawm, star of `My Dinner with Andre,' which has been mentioned her by another reviewer. As he says, `What Happened Was' is on similar territory to `Andre,' but it's much more somber and doesn't give that `redeeming' feeling at its end. Demanding and rewarding.
8 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Moulin Rouge! (2001)
Utter twaddle
30 August 2002
A truly terrible film, with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Atrocious acting, cramped and amateur sets, plus shockingly dismal editing. Its soundtrack offers the most depressingly banal songs of recent decades (all excruciatingly rendered), its script is nothing but the most tired, obvious cliches, and the plot is wholly lacking in interest.

Devoid of even a single whisper of imagination, inspiration, originality and verve, it is an offensively incompetent mishmash of half-baked tenth-rate rubbish.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Memento (2000)
1/10
Dull
7 July 2002
Overlong exegesis of a strong-potential scenario rendered in hackneyed terms. Fails to build up suspense or viewer involvement, since the handling of the protagonist's predicament leads to wholly arbitrary plot resolution. Acting by all concerned poor, and several plot holes, ie protagonist with no short-term memory being able to remember he has no short-term memory; and being able to remember that he drives a green Jaguar even though he came into possession of it only after developing the memory-loss syndrome.
11 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Reheated
2 July 2002
Bit of a dilemma on this one. To keep happy the fans of the first film, it needs to be like the first; but in being like the first, it loses what made the first memorable -- the dose of originality which took it a little way off the standard path but not too far to stray over the border.

So while there's pleasing brio from Will Smith and terseness from Tommy Lee Jones, there's also a sense of wind `em up and watch `em go. The plot dynamic with Alien Baddy Doing Bad Thing is no more than a device for them to work round, unlike Alien Baddy in Part 1 who was a more organic part of the plot, and a much better and more satisfying actor.

Some of the gags comment on the first film, and they're quite good; some are mere repeats (ie person X being an alien) and are weak.

The Zaphod Beeblebrox gag doesn't work.

Before reuniting with `K,' Will Smith has a new sidekick; unfortunately the sidekick is nothing more than a feed-line for gags.

Certain characters from the first film are crudely dumped, further enhancing the suspicion that the film is merely a vehicle for Smith and Jones to be cute.

But, hey, since the DVD of the film cost me just 80 US cents from Shanghai, I'm not complaining. And nor would I be had I paid full price at the cinema.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Titanic (1997)
1/10
Ooh it was great
2 July 2002
I just cried and cried and cried and cried. It was so romantic and moving. Yes. And that lovely, lovely, lovely theme music. It is Mozartian. Every time I hear it in a lift, or in a bar, it makes me weep. My life will never be the same.

James Cameron, you are the Shakespeare of the cinema.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Obvious
19 February 2002
Yeah, yeah, seen it all before. A bit like the awful Paul Auster, a writer who when trying to be clever is head-beatingly `How dare you think I'm so stupid as to not see through *that*.' So too with Mamet. Oof, and `The Spanish Prisoner' is as tripe.

But just about worth the 10rmb (about a dollar) I paid for the pirate DVD.
1 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Intelligent, non-derivative.
27 March 2001
Warning: Spoilers
Paul McGuigan's film is intelligent and well-made. Because it's very violent and because it's gangster genre, it is likely to be bracketed with the work of Tarantino and Guy Ritchie (`Lock, Stock' & `Snatch'). It owes little to either film-maker.

`Gangster No. 1' eschews the cartoonish and U.S.-market-oriented style of Guy Ritchie; there's none of the bogus London patois Ritchie uses, the entire cast doesn't use `oh-those-quaint-Brits' pseudonyms, and there's no contrived caper serving as plot.

Comparisons with Tarantino are equally moot: the heart of Tarantino's work is his dialogue, which snaps with sparkle and vim. Johnny Ferguson's script, by contrast, is basic, dirty; his characters' words are brutal, to the point, saying no more than needs to be said to establish place in the pack.

Spoilers ahead.

The film concerns the rise of Gangster [Malcolm McDowell] from a henchman of gangster Freddie Mays [David Thewlis] to pole position in his crime pond. This rise is depicted retrospectively, recounted by McDowell, who has been prompted to reflect on his past by the news that Mays is at the end of the 30 year jail sentence, which Gangster engineered so as to clear his path to the top. The young gangster of this reflection is played by Paul Bettany.

The three key actors each give sound performances. Bettany's job is to play the young ``amoral'' psychopath -- a role that has been done before, and often done by the actor portraying nothing; facial features that never move with `chilling' eyes in the middle. And Bettany does a portion of this. But we also hear an interior monologue -- his thoughts -- and those show a more complex individual. This, combined with shots where his mouth opens in a wide rictus and he emits a silent yell of mad rage, is relevant to the denouement of the film which -- to read other reviews on imdb -- has eluded some.

McDowell's again emulates the set facial features of the ``psychopath.'' But his emulation is different from Bettany's -- behind the older gangster's face is man who feels he has been cheated. He has got what the younger self wanted -- power, fear, wealth -- but it has not brought him the satisfaction he was sure of. He feels conned -- like Faust, but without the agency of Mephistophilis, he has the riches and none of the happiness.

Thewlis' role is that of the dangerous dandy; the slick young thug who dresses in sharp suits, who is coldly violent but mostly orchestrates rather than commits violence. He has the power Gangster wants -- and the contentment, too. We see this several times -- it is not just Mays' power Gangster wants -- it is his style -- the way he dresses, the way he behaves. And this eludes Gangster; he sees the style he wants -- but doesn't know how to emulate it [indeed being reduced at one point to wearing Mays' cast-off tie-pin] -- and he sees the unstylish life of his henchmen peers -- but doesn't know how to rise out of it. Knowing where he wants to flee and where he wants to arrive, he's stuck in limbo.

But the deeper source of his malcontent is Karen, a singer / club hostess ably played by Saffron Burrows. He is instantly captivated by her -- and instantly alienates her. Being a creature of violence he treats her [though only verbally] violently. He sees what he wants; and has no idea how to get it. But Freddie Mays knows how to get it -- and it's Freddie who ends up with Karen.

This is the key of the film. In due course Gangster engineers Mays' downfall -- he learns that another crime boss has set an ambush for Freddie, and keeps the matter quiet. Thus Freddie gets ambushed and nearly dies. Karen apparently dies too. Gangster watches this from a hidden vantage point; and watches Karen's her death with mingled pleasure and unconcern -- partly because he can't articulate his love, partly because if he can't have her he's glad to see her dead.

After the ambush he visits its orchestrator, villain Lennie Taylor [Jamie Forman], and slowly tortures him to death. He takes some pleasure in this -- out of a sense of revenging Karen's death, perhaps, for the only way his love can express itself is in violence -- yet it's not wholly clear how much pleasure he takes in it. Certainly, it's a very different scene from the torture spot in `Reservoir Dogs.' It is as if there is a finer part inside Gangster, which is glimpsed in his love for Karen and in the yells of silent rage, of something-trying-to-get-out. That side is here, too -- an inner disgust at himself.

Mays is jailed for this murder

[bigger spoilers below]

Gangster finds out that the released Mays is about to get married -- to Karen; Karen, who he thought was long dead.

He orders Mays to come and see him. Mays is now nothing like the dandy of his youth [though he's played by the same actor] -- he's weary, and the cockiness has long gone. He looks back on that past with contempt; but he's still got Karen.

This is a double blow for Gangster -- not only has he failed to emulate Mays, but striving for that emulation was pointless. Mays is unimpressed by Gangster. This first throws Gangster off balance and then into rage. Worse still is that Mays has bested him by ending up with Karen. And this is too much -- `Don't I deserve love?' Gangster asks. As Mays leaves, Gangster, out on the roof of his apartment, despairs; and throws himself off the edge.

So beneath all the crude language [which some imdb reviewers have grumbled about, perhaps thinking their villains to be polite] and violence lies a well-worked out tale -- and a love story at its heart.

Highly recommended.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed